To the charges filed against his client, Mr. Arnold entered a general plea of not guilty. Opposing counsel referred to this plea as the felon's plea, and expressed sur prise to witness it. Mr. Arnold was very happy in his reply. He said : " Why, Mr. President, if I were to believe the one half that the counsel has charged or insinuated against the respondent, in the course of that argument, or speech, I am surprised that he should be surprised that the respondent should have put in the felon's plea. I should suppose, if his estimate of the re spondent is such as was exhibited in that argument, that the felon's plea would be precisely the plea which he would have ex pected; for we cannot expect, in reference fo any expectation of the counsel, anything else than that the respondent at the bar is, indeed, a felon, or no better than a felon; but he does say that he is surprised that the respondent should put in such a plea. May it please the Court, it is a usual plea, an entirely proper plea, not for felons alone, but for honest men who are unjustly accused of crimes." Another case of great public interest and importance was the contest for the office of Governor of Wisconsin in 1856. It was commenced by the filing of an information in the nature of a quo warranto in the Su preme Court, the highest judicial body of the State, by the Attorney General on the re lation of Coles Bashford v. Wm. A. Barstow. The case was fought on both sides with great ability. Mr. Arnold was chief counsel for the unsuccessful party. The case is report ed in volume four of the Wisconsin reports, and is a leading case in its special field of judica ture. It is not intended to give any extensive account of that case. Mr. Arnold's conten tion was that the Court had no jurisdiction; that the question before the Court was a political, rather than a judicial one; that
the alleged usurpation was a political usur pation of the functions of one of the coor dinate departments of the government; a wrong, if established, to be remedied by political, and not by judicial power. The Court did not accept his view of the matter. Nevertheless, Mr. Arnold's argument is ex ceedingly interesting and ingenious. His plea for the separation of the powers of the different branches of the government is par ticularly well put and sound. "If in these ' sovereign and independent States, there is reason to fear the over shadowing power of the general govern ment, and especially the encroachments of the federal judiciary, then in each indi vidual State, there is reason to fear that one department may acquire an undue weight and crush and overwhelm the government. And just so certainly as any one depart ment attempts the subordination and the subjugation of another, then there is danger either of revolution, or the liberties of the people may fall with the integrity of their government. We want in this land no such ruins for the mournful admiration of poster ity. The traveler who in the elder world gazes on the ruins of the Coliseum or the Parthenon may wonder and admire over the magnificent relics of a work of perfect art. In this land we have erected an edifice neither Doric, nor Ionic, nor Corinthian, nor yet Gothic, but purely American in its order, the most beautiful and perfect which this world has ever seen,— the edifice of constitutional, American liberty. It is the work of the people. It is the hope of the people. It is the hope of the world for the emancipation and progress of our race. And I place the mark of treason upon the brow of every man, be he of the North or the South, on the bench or off the bench, who dares to cast one spark of fire beneath the pillars of that glorious edifice. In this
